It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

I honestly don't think it will change in our lifetimes, but I agree that it's pretty pointless anymore.

I don't think it's pointless but it needs to be modified. I was bitching about CA having so many EC votes last night. Pawnmower foisted the idea that their state needs to get rid of the "winner take all" rule and break up the votes.

In small states like NH it doesn't matter. But in states such as CA, TX, FL, OH, and PA I think those EC votes need to be broken up among the state. Some locla talkshow gal was crying on the radio yesterday about how she realized her vote wouldn't count because Kansas would go for Romney. In a state with only 6 EC votes you have to say WHA!

But in a state like CA where 55 EC votes are at stake there is a legit complaint to say that when the majority of the counties vote one way but they are negated in whole by a larger populated but yet smaller amount of counties then there is a reason to cry foul.

Plus I think it would make candidates pay attention to more states.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

I don't think it's pointless but it needs to be modified. I was bitching about CA having so many EC votes last night. Pawnmower foisted the idea that their state needs to get rid of the "winner take all" rule and break up the votes.

In small states like NH it doesn't matter. But in states such as CA, TX, FL, OH, and PA I think those EC votes need to be broken up among the state. Some locla talkshow gal was crying on the radio yesterday about how she realized her vote wouldn't count because Kansas would go for Romney. In a state with only 6 EC votes you have to say WHA!

But in a state like CA where 55 EC votes are at stake there is a legit complaint to say that when the majority of the counties vote one way but they are negated in whole by a larger populated but yet smaller amount of counties then there is a reason to cry foul.

Well you can doubt that all you want but I truly believe that breaking up the EC votes in large EC vote states is a good idea. It's better than the current system and better than a straight popular vote.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

Break up the 55 votes among the state. Similar to what Maine and Nebraska do. I know there are very conservative parts of CA but they are outnumbered compared to LA, SD and SF. Not sure exactly how it would be drawn up but you simply apportion a certain # of EC votes to a number of counties, etc.

To use modern day realities, if a Dem wanted to get all 55 CA votes it would actually require the Dem to visit CA. I don't recall the last time a candidate visited CA like they do say Ohio? Right now our Presidentials only visit a few states during campaign season. It makes it a lot tougher to get to the magic 270 when you can't take certain large states for granted like Ca and Texas.

Take Mo for example though I still see them on the smaller side. But say you alot 3 of the 11 EC votes to the KC areas, 4 to the STL areas and the remaining 4 across the state. If that were the case, Obama would probably have gotten 7 of the 11 with Romney only getting 4 as opposed to all 11.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

I don't get it either. California has a bazillion people. Of course they're going to have a bunch of electoral college votes.

It's not about reducing their EC votes. It's about spreading them out among the state. The "winner take all" method in these larger states has run it's course.

Take a look at this map and you tell me if you think just by looking at it if Obama should have won?

That's why I am saying if you break up the EC votes across the state in the larger EC states it levels out the playing field a little bit more to the fair side but doesn't swing as far as the straight popular vote.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

I'll repost this image to prove that urban centers obviously do decide elections

Look at Nevada for crying out loud. HTF do 2 counties go for Obama and the rest Romeny and Obama wins it?

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

All kinds of people vote. Not enough of those people think highly enough of Trump to make him President but all kinds of people vote.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donger

So, if they were polling better than Trump and the primary goal was to prevent Hillary from becoming POTUS, perhaps it would have been a better strategic decision to nominate someone who actually had a chance of beating her and preventing that than nominating Donald Trump.

Break up the 55 votes among the state. Similar to what Maine and Nebraska do. I know there are very conservative parts of CA but they are outnumbered compared to LA, SD and SF. Not sure exactly how it would be drawn up but you simply apportion a certain # of EC votes to a number of counties, etc.

To use modern day realities, if a Dem wanted to get all 55 CA votes it would actually require the Dem to visit CA. I don't recall the last time a candidate visited CA like they do say Ohio? Right now our Presidentials only visit a few states during campaign season. It makes it a lot tougher to get to the magic 270 when you can't take certain large states for granted like Ca and Texas.

Take Mo for example though I still see them on the smaller side. But say you alot 3 of the 11 EC votes to the KC areas, 4 to the STL areas and the remaining 4 across the state. If that were the case, Obama would probably have gotten 7 of the 11 with Romney only getting 4 as opposed to all 11.

The EC votes in the heavily populated areas would still far outweigh the small unpopulated inland areas and the ECs the Repub candidate might pick up would be negated by the ECs the Democratic candidate would pick up in states that end up being Republican.

Again, if there was actually a candidate that was worth voting for then California would vote for them.

I get the concept, but I don't understand why dividing it up at a county level is a better idea than any other process. The vote is still based on a state level... in Nevada for instance, there are obviously way more people in the blue counties than red counties... or Romney would've won the state. Why would you punish people for living in a more populated county? There doesn't seem to be a point to the idea beyond that.

Well you can doubt that all you want but I truly believe that breaking up the EC votes in large EC vote states is a good idea. It's better than the current system and better than a straight popular vote.